| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
datscilly
United States529 Posts
Damn, someone should write a paper or something on this. + Show Spoiler + Now, this being a forum, there may be posters that accuse me of being on one side, as well as the opposite side. I purely find it interesting how a 'naive' belief, when applied to certain realities of this world, turns complicated and 'ugly'. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2909 Posts
Civil disobedience is about non violent protest or usage of something that is forbidden and accepting the punishment when caugth is a core tenent of the entire idea. It doesnt matter if its a police officer just doing his job or its a civilian doing his civic duty to report crime. If the people using silkroad were really into civil disobedience because they thougth the law was dumb they would be content knowing that the absurd severity of their punishment in relation to the crime would serve to move public opinion toward their view. Obviously they werent that intrested in the idea and were more about buying drugs easily... The ammount of absurd examples with choclate bars doesnt matter because once could easily say "what if they were selling childporn?". The goods being traded isnt the issue since its about opinion on a subject. There are plenty of people who think drugs should be legal but obviously there are even more who thinks drugs should be illegal. And even if you dont care the default is that you report crime becuase its a crime and thats what most people do. Its the basis of society, and thats why people who engange in civil disobedience does it to prove people wrong and they do it expecting to be caugth and to be punished. | ||
|
HotShizz
France710 Posts
Then there are people defending the dread pirate, because drugs shouldn't be illegal, to their point of view, a point that I often agree with, and this blackmailer was threatening to release customer information. To that, I say take a step back and don't try to find the saint who made the hard decisions, see the guy who paid another man to kill someone so he wouldn't lose his source of incredible wealth and his freedom. Do you honestly think this man made some altruistic, difficult decision for the good of his customers? Going to have to say I HIGHLY doubt that. he is an idiot and a criminal looking after his self, trying to make a few million dollars (more). | ||
|
Tarot
Canada440 Posts
I think it was the Alan Turing post that won me over. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On November 12 2013 21:18 HotShizz wrote: You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, I dont give a shit about DPR's internal character, the only thing interesting to me is the political and moral issues of drug legalization and his attempts at murder. He could be a psychopath, but he still stumbled onto doing the right thing-- protecting innocent people from unjustifiable incarceration. soo from my brief perusing of this thread, there are people defending the dead snitch, because people should report crimes whatever they are. so lets start there. he wasn't reporting a crime, he was committing a crime by blackmailing the website. Did he deserve to die? in my opinion no, but he wasn't a saint he was an idiot and a criminal looking after his self, trying to make a dollar. Then there are people defending the dread pirate, because drugs shouldn't be illegal, to their point of view, a point that I often agree with, and this blackmailer was threatening to release customer information. To that, I say take a step back and don't try to find the saint who made the hard decisions, see the guy who paid another man to kill someone so he wouldn't lose his source of incredible wealth and his freedom. Do you honestly think this man made some altruistic, difficult decision for the good of his customers? Going to have to say I HIGHLY doubt that. he is an idiot and a criminal looking after his self, trying to make a few million dollars (more). On November 12 2013 19:58 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Its a poor basis for a society if you defend and help actualize immoral laws. "what people do" isnt the question, the question is what they ought to do. And I say you ought to subvert, denigrate and disobey immoral laws.Using civil disobedience to justify murder on civilians because they are not police is one of the most hilarious missunderstandngs of the concept I have ever seen, Civil disobedience is about non violent protest or usage of something that is forbidden and accepting the punishment when caugth is a core tenent of the entire idea. It doesnt matter if its a police officer just doing his job or its a civilian doing his civic duty to report crime. If the people using silkroad were really into civil disobedience because they thougth the law was dumb they would be content knowing that the absurd severity of their punishment in relation to the crime would serve to move public opinion toward their view. Obviously they werent that intrested in the idea and were more about buying drugs easily... The ammount of absurd examples with choclate bars doesnt matter because once could easily say "what if they were selling childporn?". The goods being traded isnt the issue since its about opinion on a subject. There are plenty of people who think drugs should be legal but obviously there are even more who thinks drugs should be illegal. And even if you dont care the default is that you report crime becuase its a crime and thats what most people do. Its the basis of society, and thats why people who engange in civil disobedience does it to prove people wrong and they do it expecting to be caugth and to be punished. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2909 Posts
On November 16 2013 11:13 Dazed_Spy wrote: You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, I dont give a shit about DPR's internal character, the only thing interesting to me is the political and moral issues of drug legalization and his attempts at murder. He could be a psychopath, but he still stumbled onto doing the right thing-- protecting innocent people from unjustifiable incarceration. Its a poor basis for a society if you defend and help actualize immoral laws. "what people do" isnt the question, the question is what they ought to do. And I say you ought to subvert, denigrate and disobey immoral laws. Sure. But those laws are immoral to YOU, not necessarily to others. You have no empathy if you cannot realize that there is a lot of people who do not like drugs. You can hold the moral high ground while using drugs, selling drugs and spreading propaganda for drugs while preaching that the current drug laws are far to harsh. It's a borderline case of civil disobedience but we will roll with it. But the second you say that "man I don't want to go to jail for this let's kill this guy instead of sending 1000 people to jail" you are just a common criminal. You want to use something illegal and you want to get away with it. Civil disobedience is leading by example, it's showing other people in the country that the rules are absurd and then changing opinion and later laws by the power of democracy. Killing people because they disagree with your views and you want to change them is defined as terrorism. Now this case isn't terrorism, it's just an ordinary criminal not wanting to lose his operation and get caught, there's no ideology about it. A true protest would be something like the entire graduating class of John Hopkins medical school lighting up a fat one on graduation day in front of cameras while holding up a sign stating that weed is no more harmful to your health than alcohol. Would they be prosecuted? Sure, but it would send a powerful message and probably shift the opinion a fair bit. The problem is they won't because they probably don't care as much about drugs as you do. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On November 18 2013 19:51 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Sure. But those laws are immoral to YOU, not necessarily to others. You have no empathy if you cannot realize that there is a lot of people who do not like drugs. You can hold the moral high ground while using drugs, selling drugs and spreading propaganda for drugs while preaching that the current drug laws are far to harsh. It's a borderline case of civil disobedience but we will roll with it. But the second you say that "man I don't want to go to jail for this let's kill this guy instead of sending 1000 people to jail" you are just a common criminal. You want to use something illegal and you want to get away with it. Civil disobedience is leading by example, it's showing other people in the country that the rules are absurd and then changing opinion and later laws by the power of democracy. Killing people because they disagree with your views and you want to change them is defined as terrorism. Now this case isn't terrorism, it's just an ordinary criminal not wanting to lose his operation and get caught, there's no ideology about it. A true protest would be something like the entire graduating class of John Hopkins medical school lighting up a fat one on graduation day in front of cameras while holding up a sign stating that weed is no more harmful to your health than alcohol. Would they be prosecuted? Sure, but it would send a powerful message and probably shift the opinion a fair bit. The problem is they won't because they probably don't care as much about drugs as you do. If the majority is misinformed then the majority is wrong, just because democracy is our favoured form of governance doesn't mean that every single decision on ever subject is or should be made democratically. Example : expecting a population that you have misinformed and outright lied to about "drugs" for decades to have a sensible set of views on drugs, recreational use vs addiction and so on is nothing short of delusional. Using majority opinion or current legislation to support your views on a topic like this is the only hilarious misunderstanding here. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2909 Posts
On November 18 2013 20:20 Reason wrote: If the majority is misinformed then the majority is wrong, just because democracy is our favoured form of governance doesn't mean that every single decision on ever subject is or should be made democratically. Example : expecting a population that you have misinformed and outright lied to about "drugs" for decades to have a sensible set of views on drugs, recreational use vs addiction and so on is nothing short of delusional. Using majority opinion or current legislation to support your views on a topic like this is the only hilarious misunderstanding here. What do you know about drugs then? I work in medicine and have an excellent theoretical understanding about most drugs. I don't use but I have no problems with people using THC in any forms as long as they are over 20, LSD and to some extent MDMA. I work with people who have used heavier drugs on a weakly basis and my personal opinion is that people dealing heavier narcotics which are strongly addictive should be put away for life. All drugs are not nice. In fact some drugs are fucking horrible and completely ruins peoples lives, health and mental health. If you deal heroin to 10 people I personally think you committed somewhere along 2 murders and 3-4 aggravated assaults because that's why it does to people. You can't just say things like "people are misinformed about drugs" without giving some specific examples. How are people misinformed? | ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On November 16 2013 11:13 Dazed_Spy wrote: You can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, I dont give a shit about DPR's internal character, the only thing interesting to me is the political and moral issues of drug legalization and his attempts at murder. He could be a psychopath, but he still stumbled onto doing the right thing-- protecting innocent people from unjustifiable incarceration. Its a poor basis for a society if you defend and help actualize immoral laws. "what people do" isnt the question, the question is what they ought to do. And I say you ought to subvert, denigrate and disobey immoral laws. There is a school of thought widely held by all cultures that while the majority may be uninformed or purposefully made ignorant that it is still immoral for the informed or resourced minority to subvert laws even if the laws themselves are based upon misinformation. Regardless of whether the minority in this case belong with in the privileged elites or counter-culture deviants. You know why? Because social order is based upon communication and assumed equality between individuals, and a break down of that via violent or direct subversion of the law would be destructive towards that social order and no constructive progress can ever actually be made. Effective civil disobedience relies upon communication and public challenges to the established social norms, not breaking laws to "make a point" or for your own social benefit, that's childish self-important indulgence. The majority of individuals are not "defending or helping actualize immoral laws" in areas where these laws exist, they simply lack an ideology of their own in substitution or improvement of the status-quo, or the means to actualize "moral laws", what ever those standards may be. And effective civil disobedience involves aligning the majority opinion with your own through rationality and consistent non-violent disobedience, and most importantly actually having an ideology and identity of your own aside from simply a popularized counter-culture to the status-quo. It's not enough simply to know what is "bad", you also have to define what is "good". And on that point there is a myriad of disagreement and view points, especially on the subject of drug use. Nearly every educated individual will agree that illegal drug trafficking and its associated violence / coercion / culture, lack of an education regarding narcotics or pharmaceuticals, imposing psychological or physical segregation and stereotyping towards drug users is bad; but what about the "good"? How many people who are a part of the counter-culture movement against drug prohibition actually lay out rational and enforceable legal alternatives? Scratch that, how many people can even morally distinguish the minute degrees between how a substance influences a person's ability to be responsible functional members of society and that person's own personal responsibility, before even translating that into the legal medium? From empirical evidence and personal experience most individuals just internalize these ideas and never substantiate them even in communication, the flavor of the decade discussion is over the subject of marijuana, yet very little attempt is even made to tackle the broad spectrum of social problems that drug legalization would have. What about the hundreds of thousands of other existing and an infinite possibility of substances and chemical compounds which would yield varying "benefits" and "undesirables" which are in large only defined by personal preference and wants? The definitions of "addiction" and "dependency" and when or how you can hold an individual liable for their own decision making while under the influence of a substance, and to what degree? It's always so easy for us to point and laugh at popular case studies where one specific legal obscurity is outlined, but what about the areas of moral ambiguity? What if your own beliefs of morality are wrong? The worst possible outcome in degrading or disobeying laws which you believe to be immoral is not being penalized by the legal system, but spreading the wrong message or even worse still, spreading no message at all and leaving room for misinterpretation. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On November 18 2013 21:16 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: What do you know about drugs then? I work in medicine and have an excellent theoretical understanding about most drugs. I don't use but I have no problems with people using THC in any forms as long as they are over 20, LSD and to some extent MDMA. I work with people who have used heavier drugs on a weakly basis and my personal opinion is that people dealing heavier narcotics which are strongly addictive should be put away for life. All drugs are not nice. In fact some drugs are fucking horrible and completely ruins peoples lives, health and mental health. If you deal heroin to 10 people I personally think you committed somewhere along 2 murders and 3-4 aggravated assaults because that's why it does to people. You can't just say things like "people are misinformed about drugs" without giving some specific examples. How are people misinformed? I don't need to give any examples as you should know them already. If you don't, why are you even participating in this discussion? I'm not here to give people a crash course in propaganda. Is water nice? Drink too much water and you will die. Don't drink enough and you will die. I could drown you in some water, does that make water bad? What people decide to do with water says absolutely nothing about water itself. I met a drug addict once, drugs are bad. I met a fat guy once, food is bad. I saw a kid drown once, water is bad. I saw a guy hyperventilate once, air is bad. On November 18 2013 22:16 Caihead wrote: Because social order is based upon communication and assumed equality between individuals, and a break down of that via violent or direct subversion of the law would be destructive towards that social order and no constructive progress can ever actually be made. That basically reads "there has never been a revolution". Theorycrafting is great. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On November 19 2013 05:09 heliusx wrote: Life in prison? For supplying something adults choose to use? Thank god you're not making drug policy. If I told my friend I needed his gun to kill somebody, would it be wrong for him to give it to me? He enabled my poor decision and enabled a murder. People are capable of making mistakes. Furthermore, we don't make our decisions in a bubble. There are consequences, and while I feel people are free to fuck themselves up to a certain point, ultimately people who fuck themselves up fuck up a lot of other people, sometimes in a very big way. Give somebody heroine, and you're either a colossal idiot or you know that there are damn good odds those drugs are going to ruin that guy's life and consequently make him hurt a lot of other people. By doing that, you enabled a mistake whose consequences will be felt for years. Such a crime is deserving of punishment. Lots of it. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2909 Posts
On November 19 2013 05:09 heliusx wrote: Life in prison? For supplying something adults choose to use? Thank god you're not making drug policy. Is addiction really choice? Or is that a question you have even asked yourself? Have you ever met a heroin addict that wanted to keep taking drugs? Or have you even met a heroin addict? Most people who use nicotine dont even want to keep smoking and yet they keep doing it because they cant stop. The statistics on people who use heavy drugs (meth, crack, morphine and its derivates) are fucking grim and for most users its not a choice after the first few times. Many end up dead and most others are scared on many different levels. Do I have any regard for people pushing this on other human beings? No. Let them rot in prison. And what is your utopic idea of fixing this? All drugs should be legal? Welcome to big tobaco only worse. Sure you would get rid of A LOT of problems with drug usage but dont try to tell me that more people wouldnt be using. Or is cigarettes not the most common drug in the world? The problem with this debate is that there are to many kids who just want their weed without hassle and who havent been exposed to any of the real issues or bad sides of drugs. Who read on wikipedia on what kind of effects drugs have and think they know everything there is to know. Im incredibly liberal in my view on drugs but there is a limit on how addicting a substance can be before you have to regulate it (for the record nicotine should be illegal) because we as a species are far worse than we think that we are when it comes to "choice". | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On November 19 2013 06:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Is addiction really choice? Or is that a question you have even asked yourself? Have you ever met a heroin addict that wanted to keep taking drugs? Or have you even met a heroin addict? Most people who use nicotine dont even want to keep smoking and yet they keep doing it because they cant stop. The statistics on people who use heavy drugs (meth, crack, morphine and its derivates) are fucking grim and for most users its not a choice after the first few times. Many end up dead and most others are scared on many different levels. Do I have any regard for people pushing this on other human beings? No. Let them rot in prison. And what is your utopic idea of fixing this? All drugs should be legal? Welcome to big tobaco only worse. Sure you would get rid of A LOT of problems with drug usage but dont try to tell me that more people wouldnt be using. Or is cigarettes not the most common drug in the world? The problem with this debate is that there are to many kids who just want their weed without hassle and who havent been exposed to any of the real issues or bad sides of drugs. Who read on wikipedia on what kind of effects drugs have and think they know everything there is to know. Im incredibly liberal in my view on drugs but there is a limit on how addicting a substance can be before you have to regulate it (for the record nicotine should be illegal) because we as a species are far worse than we think that we are when it comes to "choice". I don't have time at the moment to address your entire post but I wanted to say that people don't magically become addicted to drugs. They made a choice. | ||
|
Badboyrune
Sweden2247 Posts
On November 19 2013 06:33 heliusx wrote: I don't have time at the moment to address your entire post but I wanted to say that people don't magically become addicted to drugs. They made a choice. No one makes a choice to become addicted. They may have made a choice the first one, two, maybe as many as the first five times. Beyond that though there's not much choice involved when you're talking about heavy drug use. People who deal heavy drugs are not providing a service to people who make their own conscious and informed decisions, they are spoon feeding poison to people who can't say no and making good money off of it. There may have been a choice once, albeit a bad and horribly misinformed one perhaps thinking the the risks are overstated or that you know how to handle it. If dealers only sold to people who were still able to make a choice and not to people who are addicts, however, I suspect drug dealing wouldn't be a very profitable business. | ||
|
Kabras
Romania3508 Posts
| ||
|
Vasoline73
United States8196 Posts
Personally I think it would be cool if we did... cigs at 18, alcohol at 21 (stupid USA), weed 21, LSD/shrooms/mescaline at 30, opiates at 60, meth at 100, etc ^^. By the time you get to 60 you should hopefully have enough life experience to handle opiates responsibly ^^. And likely need the pain relief medically anyways. Meth at 100 will be looked at as a beautiful ceremony for those lucky enough to live up to it. This will keep hard drugs away from our youth better than the current system. Lol. Mostly joking... although I think an age limit for approved psychedelics would be a reasonable way to handle that class of drug. Opiates and stims obviously are much more difficult from a public health standpoint. Maybe opiate vacation spa's or something. Check in for a week, put your name on a list, enjoy your opiates under care and supervision of trained medical staff who inform you of the danger of long term opiate addiction, last 2/3 days of the week they taper you off, and then you can't go to another opiate club for 3 months or something. Obviously that could create problems as well though if people sneak out opiate supplies or steal them etc. Just throwing out various brainstorm ideas. Nothing too serious. | ||
|
soon.Cloak
United States983 Posts
On November 07 2013 07:03 Reason wrote: To clarify for you, my position on this is not clear however I think that the position most people are taking, yourself included, is a little close-minded...[took out some stuff]... The crime is eating a chocolate bar. The punishment is death. You are a chocolate bar dealer. Someone has a list of 100 people that bought chocolate bars from you and is threatening to expose them to the police. I'd say there's good argument for killing this person before they manage to successfully report these heinous crimes... Mhm, interesting, I enjoy discussing analogies. But I think the answer to the chocolate analogy (and the real case) is dependent on a bunch of other issues that people probably disagree about. 1) What is the punishment for eating the chocolate? If it's death, I think (and I would imagine others would agree) you have a very strong case for killing the guy. If it's a small fine, significantly less so. Drug dealing, of course, falls somewhere in the middle. 2) How many people are being affected? Is there some point where you say "I'm willing to let X people get some punishment, but Y people is simply too many"? Were there enough innocents caught up in this relative to the guilty? Were any guilty by any objective standard? 3) What is your obligation to follow laws that don't coincide with your personal moral system? Is there any? If so, to what extent? I personally believe killing is always (basically, lol...) wrong, except for self-defense, so I would naturally say what he did was wrong. And I think abetting addictions is wrong, so I don't have much sympathy for the dealers of the harder drugs. But it's kind've hard to prove morals and ethics right and wrong, so I doubt I'll be convincing you any time soon (or you me, but feel free to try). Also, I assume the attacks on you are a function of what seems to be your cavalier attitude towards murder, whether that's true or not. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
ByuN vs Lambo
MaxPax vs Bunny
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
OSC
WardiTV Invitational
GSL
Epic.LAN
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
